Where in the Qur'an does it say to hurt/kill nonMuslims?

[jamaesi]

Are you suggesting that this discussed passage be removed from the qur'an on the grounds of it's irrelevency?

No, I'm just saying a heated debate that is just getting more and more tempers flared is getting pointless. It's like saying history isn't relevant- it is, just that it IS history.

And some (not just in this thread, but everywhere) are not looking at it in that way and seem to be thinking it's clear commandents for Muslims to run out and slaughter Pagans or what have you (another reason it is ridiculous is this is English and we can't even decide on a clear translations of the words so people are getting different frames for this) for the heck of it. This passage refers to times in the past when things like that were happening- but whenever I brought that up I was told we were just trying to get a "clear" reading- which isn't that possible in this case.

 

[jamaesi]

Its relevant today everytime buldings and vehicles burn in France. Its relevant today every time a suicide bomber kills innocents. It is relevant today whenever a terrorist plot succeeds or fails.

Some want to blame it on the "bloodthirsty nature" of Islam, and Islam is far from blood thirsty.

And those have not much to do the past events that Sura 9 was talking about.

Some people just want something to blame and will not listen to the truth no matter how long we go on talking about one Sura that talks about the history of early Muslims and Pagans and their treaties.

I'm sorry if I'm just the only one missing it, but were in the passage does it talk about suicide bombers or France or killing innocents and terrorist plots. Where in the Qur'an does it talk about France and promotes suicide bombing and killing innocents and terrorist plots. Cause last time I read it- I saw nothing to make me think that Islam is blood-thirsty.

I'm afraid I think that pointing the fact that the Qur'an does say to not kill innocents and to fight only in defense and to live in peace is more productive than squabbling over a mistranslated Sura about the past and past events that are not quite applicable anymore.

 

[mr.guy]

It's like saying history isn't relevant- it is, just that it IS history.

But history is debatalbe as well. Remember, we're often quoted the bible as literal history.

And some (not just in this thread, but everywhere) are not looking at it in that way and seem to be thinking it's clear commandents for Muslims to run out and slaughter Pagans or what have you...

That hasen't been established. I still don't see why one can't ask about the meaning of a line that comes across so agressively.

(another reason it is ridiculous is this is English and we can't even decide on a clear translations of the words so people are getting different frames for this)

A poor reason to insist we cease this query; "You'll never get it, so just forget about it".

This passage refers to times in the past when things like that were happening- but whenever I brought that up I was told we were just trying to get a "clear" reading- which isn't that possible in this case.

Then either it's irrelevent because the conditions no longer exist, thus the rules of sura 9 can never be enacted or a plain reading can be deduced to have built in mechanics on timeless circumstances for application of it. I think the insistence for minimal historical contextualization is a valid one, if we're to test the use and abuse of the qur'an (which, incedently, seems to be the raison d'etre of the opening chapter of sura 9).

 

[jamaesi]

Okay.

I think we're all not quite... understanding each other.


I'm somewhat frustrated as whenever I tried to explain the passage or add context I was put down because a "clear reading" was wanted- and I don't quite understand what is meant by that. I thought by reading the passage it was pretty clear that we weren't supposed to kill these people because they were pagan- but because of dishonesty and oathbreaking and in self-defense- but you have to go on the history and the entire passage and context- which I was told was not a "clear" reading. This thread is about where the Qur'an says to kill nonMuslims just because they are nonMuslim. That isn't the case in Sura 9 as the majourity of people in this thread are saying.

 

[mr.guy]

I'm somewhat frustrated as whenever I tried to explain the passage or add context I was put down because a "clear reading" was wanted- and I don't quite understand what is meant by that.

Probably 'cause truly there's no such thing. The exercise is to judge the "natural" conclusions based on the instructions as put forth. If the historical context was inacurate or distroted, one could easily twist the meaning of the sura (whatever it might actually mean) to best fit the perceived context. Simply put, can the book single-handedly instruct one's behaviour with the best intentions and spirit that the author intended, and can it be done intelligently with general consensus towards it's meaning.

I thought by reading the passage it was pretty clear that we weren't supposed to kill these people because they were pagan- but because of dishonesty and oathbreaking and in self-defense-

"(But the treaties are) not dissoved
With those Pagans with whom
Ye have entered into alliance
And who have not subsequently
Failed you in aught,
Nor aided any one against you.
So fufil you engagements
With them to the end
Of their term: for God
Loveth the righteous

But When the forbidden months
Are past, then fight and slay...

As Jerry has pointed out, each verse starts with a "but" and one can't help but ask (legitamialy) if the verse 5 instructs muslims to attack Pagans who in verse 4 seemed to be behaving themselves quite well.

That isn't the case in Sura 9 as the majourity of people in this thread are saying.

Do you not think the qur'an can adequately tell one when and how they should or shouldn't slaughter pagans? The book must speak for itself, so the tense and semantics can be important. This isn't to say that the history is completely irrelevent, but if we can't extrapolate a useful or definitive instruction from the book, what good is the book to begin with?

 

[Popeyesays]

And those have not much to do the past events that Sura 9 was talking about.

Some people just want something to blame and will not listen to the truth no matter how long we go on talking about one Sura that talks about the history of early Muslims and Pagans and their treaties.

I'm sorry if I'm just the only one missing it, but were in the passage does it talk about suicide bombers or France or killing innocents and terrorist plots. Where in the Qur'an does it talk about France and promotes suicide bombing and killing innocents and terrorist plots. Cause last time I read it- I saw nothing to make me think that Islam is blood-thirsty.

I'm afraid I think that pointing the fact that the Qur'an does say to not kill innocents and to fight only in defense and to live in peace is more productive than squabbling over a mistranslated Sura about the past and past events that are not quite applicable anymore.

I don't believe that Islam is bloodthirsty. I believe that those who call themselves clerics and mystics have sometimes used the passages in question to FOSTER terrorist acts in the world.

I agree that the issue has become way too focused on a particular statement. I do think that if it wasn't continuously hammered home by one individual the board would still fall down without anything to hold it up.

I'm sorry, my friend, when someone says an argument as prejudicial as that and wishes to pass it of as simple fact, I'm going to point it out.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

"Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. "

This is your only argument you have in here as i noticed so i got the whole explination from Tafseer Al-Qurtoby in arabic and here is what it says:

009.001
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

I guess this verse is clear enough.

009.002
YUSUFALI: Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

009.003
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans (this one include all pagans before the expetion). If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

While prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was outside Mekkah for a battle it was the time of Pilgrimage then prophet Mohammed didn't like to perfrom pilgrimage while the pagans still there doing it while they are naked as they used to do, then prophet mohammed sent abu baker to warn the pagans who have treaties for less than 4 months that God gave them 4 months but for the people who have more than that so Allah ordered the Muslims to respect that and fulfill the treaties till it ends even though it's more than 4 months in this verse:

009.004
YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term ( this must be the answer for your question that Muslims must kill the pagans who have treaties which is less than 4 months or 4 months but not the pagans with the treaties which exceeds 4 months): for Allah loveth the righteous.

Then:

the verse 9:5 comes with the order to kill the pagans who failed to keep the treaties between them and the Muslims but to not touch the pagans who have other treaties wich is valid for more than 4 months and they never failed thier treaties with Muslims because we already knows that Allah said in verse 9:4 ... So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

Then the verse 9:6 comes saying:

009.006
YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

This is the verse of course which some people ignore but it's so clear and so peacfull

Now to the verse 9:7 which will tell us the reason why the Muslims at that time had to fight the pagans

009.007
YUSUFALI: How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? (again here this verse is to remind some people that pagans who never break thier treaies are safe)As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them ( guys anything clearer than that): for Allah doth love the righteous. (again)

The question is why is that?
The answer is in verse 8, 9, 10

009.008
YUSUFALI: How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.

009.009
YUSUFALI: The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

009.010
YUSUFALI: In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

Now to the part where Allah ask the Muslims to be breathern in faith and to build a brotherhood the moment the pagans repent for thier deeds in the past in verse 11.

009.011
YUSUFALI: But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.(Allah is saying that this for people who are really can understand the greatness and value in this verse)

009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith (the pagans who have treaties for more than 4 months who didn't failed the muslims in aught nor aided the others against Muslims before who were in safe so now if they didn't respect that and they broke the treaties so ...),- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.( the purpose here to fight the people who broke the treaties in this verse is not for killing but for the hope that they may repent)


009.013
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

(i guess the verse 13 is clear enough to speak for itself)



There is no such a thing from what i already explained anything from my mind except some comments but the rest i read from the Arabic Quran and it's Tafseer Al-qurtoby (because the english one wasn't that accurate for me because i used to read the Quran in arabic because it's my first language).

Now if any have any specific question after this plain explaination so please speak loud.

 

[john313]

I've repeatedly heard this from various people, but never seen anyone cite a part of the Qur'an for it. I'm not exactly studied on Islam, but from what I've read these parts of the Qur'an are just being twisted and horribly translated (similar to some Bible verses; 'bash thy little ones upon the rocks', anyone?).

Enlighten me?

i did not find it anywhere in the book, so i went ahead and wrote it on the top of every page of mine so i would not forget. :jiggy:

peace

 

[Anastasios]

Whenever one wishes to speak about Islam as a religion of peace, the question naturally springs to mind that whereas there are so many religions in the world such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., when it comes to finding out whether Islam is a religion of peace, why should Islam be the odd one out?

One reason for this is that a few years after the beginning of Islam, anti-Islamic powers began a propaganda that Islam is a religion of extremism and violence and wants to compel others into belief by means of the sword. This, of course, is incorrect. In the beginning, the Muslims of Makkah suffered persecution but they remained silent. Finally, they migrated to Madinah but there too the disbelievers hounded the Muslims and forced upon them a battle to which I will revert later. The proof against those opponents who allege that Islam was spread by the sword is that although the disbelievers of Makkah raised all sorts of objections, yet history stands witness to the fact that the people of Makkah themselves never complained that the Muslims had used the sword against the disbelievers to compel them to change their faith. Secondly, what has given Islam a bad name is an ugly and awful image of extremism presented, whether knowingly or unwittingly, by some Muslim groups and organisations, and these groups unfortunately had personal vested interests.

In order to see a religion’s beauties or its defects, justice requires that you should make its teachings or its holy scripture the anvil by which to judge it, otherwise everyone would accuse every other faith willy-nilly. For instance, the teaching of Christianity, according to the Holy Bible, is:

‘But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’

(Matthew: 5:39)

But, in Bosnia or Iraq or other countries, America and the other Western powers, resorted or are resorting to aggression. If, however, we say that the Christian teaching is that if anyone raises his head against you, you should use all your might to trample it to death, this would be a grave injustice. In the same way, to find out the true teachings of Islam, we would have to study the Holy Qur’an and see what it says and not base it on the actions of some Muslims who have forgotten the teachings of the Holy Qur’an .

Anyhow, let us first see what the Holy Qur’an commands us to do in order to establish peace. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’ a n :

Whosoever killed a person – unless it be for killing a

person or for creating disorder in the land – it shall be

as if he had killed all mankind.

(Al Maidah, Ch.5: v. 33)

Thus, this is the beautiful teaching of Islam that the unlawful killing or the shedding of innocent blood of someone is like the killing of the entire human race, that is to say, the taking of a single life is like the massacre of thousands of innocent lives. Now, everyone can very well imagine what kind of sentence would be passed on someone who is found guilty of the taking of thousands of innocent lives. So this is the beautiful teaching given to us by God Almighty in the Holy Qur’an. Whosoever acts against this, acts against the teachings of Islam.
It should briefly be explained some of the countless examples of kindness we find in the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammadand how concerned he was about the condition of his people. If someone is kind to some person and wants to see his or her betterment, then the person will try his best to do something for him or her. The Holy Prophet( s a ) was so kind and anxious for his people and prayed for them even though they believed in so many gods that it is beyond our imagination. God Almighty has promised that He would most surely punish those who associate others with God. Now, this thought that God Almighty would never forgive one who associates partners with God, used to make the Holy Prophet Muhammadrestless so much so that he would bow down repeatedly in prayers. He had a burning passion in his heart for the reformation of his people that he had become weary with worry for his people. Finally, God Almighty had to tell him not to grieve himself to death for sorrow after them (Ch.18:v.7) and that his mission was only to give them the message. We can judge his prayers from the following Tradition:

The Holy Prophet Muhammad prayed for his enemies:

‘O Allah! Guide my people because they know not (do not know the truth)’.

In the same way, when once he was asked to pray that a curse befalls the Dossan tribe, he prayed instead:

‘O Allah! Guide the tribe of Dossan.’

So this was the anxiety in him for kindness and for humanity. He never said that he was going to compel them into belief by use of the sword but in fact refrained from any malediction or uttering any curse that an evil befalls his enemy. ‘The pagans of Makkah exiled the Holy Prophet Muhammad from Makkah and gave him no respite in Madinah but whenever he met them, the Holy Prophet Muhammaddealt with gracious kindness towards them. After the migration of the Holy Prophet Muhammadto Madinah, the people of Makkah had to suffer a severe drought so much so that they had to live on dead meat and bones. Then in utter helplessness, Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Makkans, had to approach the Holy Prophet Muhammad and said: “O Muhammad! You command treating one’s own relatives well. Your people are dying. Pray to your God in our favour (that this famine passes away) and it begins to rain lest your people perish.” To bring Abu Sufyan down to earth, the Holy Prophetremarked that you are very brave and courageous that despite the transgression by the Makkans, you demand a prayer on their behalf. But the Holy Prophetdid not refuse to pray because he was mercy personified and he could have never wished that his people should perish. Then the people observed that his hands went up in prayers immediately and the Holy Prophet’s prayers for an end to the famine and the heavens to open up was duly accepted. It rained so much that the days of ease and abundance returned for the Quraish of Makkah. But, at the same time, their denial and opposition grew rapidly.’

(Bukhari: Kitabul Tafseer Sura Al-Rum lidukhan)

Now after this who can say that he gave a teaching of extremism and terrorism.

 

[Anastasios]

Wars and principles and regulations


When the Holy Prophet(sa) engaged in a battle, he used to firmly

order that:

z No woman be killed;

z No children be killed;

z The old not be impeded;

z Nothing be said to the refugees, monks or hermits;

z No person be set on fire;

z No animal be killed;

z No tree be cut down;

z Unlike your enemy, no person’s nose or ear be cut off.

Then having been victorious, he used to proclaim:

z No injured be killed;

z Do not pursue unnecessarily anyone who escapes.

Then in connection with prisoners of war, he used to ask for

their kind treatment.

‘Thus the prisoners taken after the Battle of Badr themselves

admitted that: By God! The Muslims walked on foot while

we were made to ride, they remained hungry themselves

whilst they fed us, they remained thirsty while they gave us

water.’

(Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud)

Those who call Islam a belligerent, trigger happy and extremist religion should think whether a belligerent religion can give this kind of teaching. Do not toss the action of a few people and organisations into the lap of Islam and call it Islam. Today, in this age when man considers himself highly advanced and under-standing should ask himself whether these high values manifest themselves when bombs rain down from the skies, when missiles are fired on cities and dwellings. How much blood is shed of innocent lives in this indiscriminate bombardment which falls here and kills one here and another one there? In areas where there is anarchy, each day there are funerals of the old, women and children. Such news is not hidden from our eyes.

In conclusion, I end the subject of Islam’s beautiful teaching and its promotion of peace and its teaching which united a diverse mankind into a single brotherhood with a quotation from a Christian historian, Georgie Zeidan:

‘A primary reason for the rapid progress in Muslim education is that the Caliphs of Islam greatly valued the scholars of all faiths and all people and always enriched them with awards of gifts and bounties. They had no concern with their religion or their nationality or their caste or creed. Amongst them were Christians, Jews, Sabians, magicians, sooth-sayers and in fact people from every group. The Caliphs dealt with them with extreme reverence, respect and esteem. The non-Muslims had the same rights and freedoms that the Muslim leaders and governors enjoyed.’

(Tarikh Al Tamaddan Al-Islami Vol.3, p.194)

 

[JerryL]

No, pagans are believers in multiple gods, the people of the Book are ALL monotheists and followin the tradition of Abraham.

That wasn't my question. My question was whether you felt the requirement to convert accepted to Christianity or Judaism as an acceptable alternative to a conversion to Islam to make them no longer Idolotes and therefore no longer require their death.

No, but you could carry on warfare freely with those who had already attacked you - the period of four holy months is when everyone should abstain from warfare. The idolators were the first to break that convention.

What was the criteria for not being able to attack someone during those months? That they not attack you? Then on what grounds do you attack them at all (these people who have been true to their alliance with you and not aided your enemies)?

The end of the term of any treaty. In that time treaties could have expressed periods of duration, or might not have any fixed duration expressed in the treaty. Idolators wre NOT "People of the Book".

So then you agree that the treaty with the idolaters expired? That's opposite of what you said

"Sctually, it does not say 'attack them when the alliance ends". You are getting mixed up with English Common and US Law concepts. In the legal parlance of the US and Commonwealth legal systems, treaties are contracts and contracts must have a term of time or a term of time is assigned to it by a court (such as the US where a contract without a specific term is assigned a term of ONE year.

The treaties amongst the tribes of Arabia in the seventh century, common era did not have such caveats attached. A treaty ran until one part broke it. The muslims did not ever break such a treaty during that century. All treaty abrogations were instigated by the non-muslim parties to the agreement." - Post 178
​

The point is that infanticide was forbidden in Muslim tribes, Jewish tribes and Christian tribes and was permitted in the tribes led by idolators.

You have not proven that this was allowed by the idoloters in question.

And the Islamic regulations and laws concerning the rights of women were the first WRITTEN and binding set of laws for the emancipation of women in that society - right?

I have no idea... and I'd not consider women under Islam "emancipated".

And the Islamic regulations and laws concerning the rights of women were the first WRITTEN and binding set of laws for the emancipation of women in that society - right?

That was the reason for killing the idoloters that honored their alliances (whcih according to you had no end) and did not aid the enemeies of the Muslims?

He slughtered those that held their reaties and did not attack because they attacked? That's paradoxical.

 

[JerryL]

I don't (based soley on this set of verses we're discussing) believe that muslims are here ordered to kill pagans just for being pagans. They are painted as generally ne'er do wells (with "misguided" or "unknowledgeable" exceptions), but my take on this is that these verses basically grant permission to muslims to attack or convert pagans deemed to be too much of a nuisance. I think "gods frustration" is used to condemn the pagans for "shiftyness" (for lack of a better word). The four months gives ample time for the pagans to reflect on what they've done and educate themselves on why their actions, while not expressed in the treaty as violation, are still wrong. If the pagans can't be suitable, well-behaved pagan neighbours, they now have a choice of being muslim (monotheist?) or dead. However, the asylum clause seems to grant small exception to this, but i can't at present deduce what's specifically required, be it "goodness", devoutness, or a nice brownie recipe; i think it may be intended to be somewhat open-ended here

This sounds right to me.

 

[JerryL]

Its relevant today everytime buldings and vehicles burn in France. Its relevant today every time a suicide bomber kills innocents. It is relevant today whenever a terrorist plot succeeds or fails.

Most any fudamentalist ideology resorts to a similar response. Look at our invasion of Iraq as an example.

Some want to blame it on the "bloodthirsty nature" of Islam, and Islam is far from blood thirsty.

It's moderately blood thirsty, having blood-sacrifices and something of a blood-obsession left over from the Jews.

 

[JerryL]

In order to see a religion’s beauties or its defects, justice requires that you should make its teachings or its holy scripture the anvil by which to judge it, otherwise everyone would accuse every other faith willy-nilly. For instance, the teaching of Christianity, according to the Holy Bible, is:

I'm not sure I can agree. The beauty of a recipie can best be seen in the proverbial pudding. While one cannot isolate example, we have 1500 hears of history of Islam to look at and see how it behaved relative to others.

But, in Bosnia or Iraq or other countries, America and the other Western powers, resorted or are resorting to aggression. If, however, we say that the Christian teaching is that if anyone raises his head against you, you should use all your might to trample it to death, this would be a grave injustice. In the same way, to find out the true teachings of Islam, we would have to study the Holy Qur’an and see what it says and not base it on the actions of some Muslims who have forgotten the teachings of the Holy Qur’an .

We must judge the religion by its practitioners (as a whole). We must judge the teacher by the effect on his students.

President Carter came and told the Americans true things. It was ineffective. Reagan lied, and god things resulted. Who had a better message?

 

[Nasrumminallah]

:banghead3 Man you guys are crazy. Its so simple. We have to live a total of 60 -70 year 80 at the max (repurcussions of junk food inclusive). Live righteously and enjoy every moment of it to the fullest in view of what deeds have to be done obligatory and which can be done out of ones own will.
I'm sure it'll be easy on all of us.
Cheers!!

 

[Jaymes]

We must judge the religion by its practitioners (as a whole). We must judge the teacher by the effect on his students.

President Carter came and told the Americans true things. It was ineffective. Reagan lied, and god things resulted. Who had a better message?

Then you advocate lying in favor of the truth if the lying temporarily makes things better?

 

[Popeyesays]

Then you advocate lying in favor of the truth if the lying temporarily makes things better?

Heck, let's judge Christianity by the rape and pillage of Constantinople and Jerusalem by the Crusades. Let's judge Christianity by the Holocaust, Hitler, after all was a Catholic. let's judge Buddhism by the killing fields of Pol Pot. let's judge Hinduism by the excesses of the Indian Mutiny - in particular the Black Hole of Calcutta. let's judge atheism by the starvation of the Ukraine by Stalin.

If we're going to use a ridiculous measure of terror, let's use it across the board - just to be fair.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jahangir]

But Islam seems to be singled out and called a violent religion the most (and mostly without basis)- even though the Bible has a lot of violence itself. :/

Yes, but notice that Christianity has evolved as a religion, as has judaism, but Islam hasnt changed a single bit... and this is the flaw of it. In the times we are living now, we have to be CIVILIZED. Look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, or a few other extremist Islamic countries, where it is PUNISHABLE BY STONING TO DEATH if you're a Muslim who converts to another religion, also known as (apostasy). Come on, STONING TO DEATH??? This is still going on TODAY people!!! Its going on this very hour probably. Maybe that explains why "islam seems to be singled out and called a violent religion".

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Don't make personal insults. Attack ideas all you want, but don't attack each other.

 

[Jahangir]

"fear-mongering" ?? .. Not in anyway was it my intention to SCARE you .. but everything I said were all facts, face it.. in no way am i a supremecist, right-wing, whatever you wish to call me .. I'm just telling you the facts..hopefully .. or for your case .. "inshallah" your next post will have something that proves otherwise.